Every gene in the H2B ubiquitination axis, ranked against the whole genome for KMT2A selectivity — and the writers are not selective
also called H2Bub machinery DepMap lookup · RNF20 selectivity null
We looked up every enzyme that writes, carries or erases the H2B ubiquitin tag in a ready-made scan of 17,728 genes that ranks how much more KMT2A-rearranged leukaemia cells need a gene than other leukaemia cells do. The enzymes that write the tag came out flat or backwards; only the erasing side produced anything.
The same thing, for a scientist
🟠 **ARM-COMPOSITION CAVEAT ADDED 2026-09-24 (cycle 140).** This entry's computation rests on `analyses/depmap-kmt2a-selective-scan-full`, and that scan **fixes both comparison arms from the first gene that returns screen data** (`run.py:170`, `if rear is None:`; line 174 prints *"Groups fixed from first gene with data"*). Because DepMap screens each gene in a gene-specific set of lines, **5 of 16 eligible KMT2A-rearranged lines are excluded from every gene comparison, including genes where they were screened** - 16 resolve under the scan's own query, 11 were used. **This does not show any conclusion here is wrong.** Dropping 5 of 16 costs power, and it biases a ranking only if the dropped lines differ systematically from the kept ones, **which nobody has tested.** The named one-line fix is to derive the arms from each gene's own screen list. Until the scan is re-run, selectivity ranks taken from it carry an unquantified arm-composition caveat. Found by `analyses/depmap-scan-line-identities` on 2026-09-21 and unreported until now; see `ana-the-depmap-selectivity-scan-fixes-its-arms-from-the-first-gene-and-drops-five-of-sixteen-lines-from-every-comparison`. --- The premise of this beat is that H2B ubiquitination is upstream of the most-cited mechanistic step in KMT2A-rearranged leukaemia and absent from the graph. The premise is correct. The natural corollary — that the machinery is therefore a target — is what this analysis tests, using the project's existing full genome-wide scan (`analyses/depmap-kmt2a-selective-scan-full`, 17,728 protein-coding genes, 11 Cellosaurus-annotated KMT2A-rearranged versus 43 other leukaemia lines) with no new computation, only lookups of `all_results`. **The writers fail.** RNF20 ranks 16,229 of 17,728 — its difference is *positive*, meaning marginally less required in the rearranged lines — while being broadly essential (-0.734). RNF40 (rank 9,953), WAC (7,779), UBE2A (6,504), UBE2B (10,016), UBE2E1 (17,038) and MSL2 (7,112) are all flat. **The erasers do better.** USP22 ranks 226 and ATXN7L3 ranks 290, both in the top 1.6% of the genome, but ENY2 — ATXN7L3's own module partner — ranks 11,080, which is an internal inconsistency that argues for caution. For scale, MEN1 ranks 1 and DOT1L ranks 184 in the same scan.
The table
Difference = mean Chronos gene effect in 11 KMT2A-rearranged leukaemia lines minus mean in 43 other leukaemia lines. More negative = more selectively required in KMT2A-rearranged lines. Pan = mean across all 1,208 lines.
| Gene | Role | KMT2A-r | other leuk | difference | rank / 17,728 | pan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEN1 | benchmark | -1.263 | -0.397 | -0.866 | 1 | -0.363 |
| KMT2A | benchmark | -0.811 | -0.270 | -0.541 | 11 | -0.206 |
| DOT1L | benchmark | -0.604 | -0.373 | -0.231 | 184 | -0.148 |
| USP22 | H2Bub eraser (SAGA DUB) | -0.130 | +0.082 | -0.211 | 226 | +0.089 |
| ATXN7L3 | DUB adaptor | -0.446 | -0.258 | -0.188 | 290 | -0.336 |
| LEO1 | PAF1C | -0.420 | -0.252 | -0.168 | 367 | -0.213 |
| RTF1 | PAF1C, required for H2Bub | -0.703 | -0.620 | -0.083 | 1,645 | -0.666 |
| MSL1 | H2BK34ub complex | -0.449 | -0.376 | -0.073 | 2,078 | -0.365 |
| USP51 | H2Bub eraser | -0.006 | +0.050 | -0.057 | 2,992 | -0.004 |
| PAF1 | PAF1C | -0.818 | -0.780 | -0.038 | 4,529 | -0.832 |
| UBE2A | candidate E2 | -0.173 | -0.153 | -0.020 | 6,504 | -0.162 |
| SKIC8 | PAF1C | -0.831 | -0.815 | -0.016 | 7,012 | -0.746 |
| MSL2 | H2BK34 E3 | -0.111 | -0.096 | -0.015 | 7,112 | -0.083 |
| WAC | H2Bub adaptor | -0.393 | -0.383 | -0.011 | 7,779 | -0.389 |
| KAT8 | MOF, same complex as MSL2 | -1.489 | -1.493 | +0.004 | 9,683 | -1.452 |
| RNF40 | H2Bub E3 | -0.520 | -0.527 | +0.006 | 9,953 | -0.490 |
| UBE2B | candidate E2 | +0.080 | +0.073 | +0.007 | 10,016 | +0.049 |
| ENY2 | DUB adaptor | -0.335 | -0.350 | +0.015 | 11,080 | -0.313 |
| CDC73 | PAF1C | -1.177 | -1.196 | +0.020 | 11,645 | -1.122 |
| USP27X | H2Bub eraser | +0.101 | +0.073 | +0.028 | 12,583 | +0.075 |
| RNF20 | H2Bub E3 | -0.658 | -0.735 | +0.076 | 16,229 | -0.734 |
| UBE2E1 | candidate E2 (UbcH6) | +0.098 | -0.010 | +0.108 | 17,038 | -0.007 |
| CTR9 | PAF1C | -0.854 | -0.999 | +0.146 | 17,413 | -0.873 |
What this does and does not overturn
It does not overturn Wang et al. 2013. That paper showed Rnf20 suppression inhibits proliferation of MLL-rearranged leukaemia models in vitro and in vivo and lowers Dot1l-dependent H3K79me at Hoxa9 and Meis1. This analysis agrees that RNF20 is required — the KMT2A-rearranged mean gene effect is -0.658, a real dependency. What it adds is the comparator that paper did not run: other leukaemia lines need RNF20 just as much (-0.735). Necessity, yes. Selectivity, no.
It does not prove there is no window. Three specific reasons to hold the null loosely:
- Eleven lines, AML-weighted, none infant-derived. The two KMT2A-specific H2Bub papers are an AML-model study and an infant B-ALL xenograft study. The DepMap panel does not represent the second.
- CRISPR knockout compresses differences for essential genes. When both arms die, the difference between them shrinks. RNF20's pan-essentiality of -0.734 is exactly the regime where this matters.
- Redundancy is invisible to single-gene knockout. Three candidate E2s all score flat; three H2Bub DUBs all score flat or modest. That is the signature of redundancy, and DepMap cannot see a requirement shared across paralogues.
What it does establish is that the burden of proof has moved. Anyone proposing RNF20/RNF40/WAC as a KMT2A-rearranged target now has to explain a genome-wide rank of 16,229 — and the honest place to look for the explanation is an infant B-ALL model, because that is the context DepMap does not cover.
| script | analyses/depmap-kmt2a-selective-scan-full/run.py |
|---|---|
| status | run |
| result summary | The H2Bub writers show no KMT2A selectivity (RNF20 rank 16229, RNF40 9953, WAC 7779, all three candidate E2s flat, MSL2 7112). The erasers do: USP22 rank 226 and ATXN7L3 rank 290, though ENY2 in the same module ranks 11080. Benchmarks MEN1 rank 1, KMT2A 11, DOT1L 184. |
| method note | Lookup only; no recomputation. Values taken from the all_results array of the existing scan. |
| n genes looked up | 23 |
| arm composition caveat cycle 140 | source scan fixes both arms from the first gene with data (run.py:170); 5 of 16 eligible KMT2A-rearranged lines are excluded from every comparison. Effect on this entry's conclusion untested. |
inputs
[ "analyses/depmap-kmt2a-selective-scan-full/results.json (all_results, 17728 genes)" ]
- A null from an underpowered panel is not the same as an absence, and this project has previously over-read DepMap in both directions. The correct use of this table is to raise the burden of proof on the writers, not to close the question.
- Conversely, the two eraser hits (USP22, ATXN7L3) come from the same underpowered panel and deserve exactly the same scepticism they would receive if they had pointed the other way.
- Does RNF20 show selectivity in infant B-ALL models specifically? That is the one context where the positive literature lives and the one context DepMap does not cover.
- Would a titratable degron rather than a knockout reveal a window for RNF20 that CRISPR compresses away? The pan-essentiality of -0.734 is exactly where this concern bites.
- Is the USP22/ATXN7L3 pair a real signal, given ENY2's null? A single knockout experiment in matched lines settles it.
- Should the scan be re-run restricted to B-lineage lines? The panel is AML-weighted and this project's disease is not.
- E1strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.dataset
Lookups of the project's existing genome-wide DepMap KMT2A-selectivity scan give, for the H2B ubiquitination axis: RNF20 difference +0.076 (rank 16,229/17,728, pan -0.734); RNF40 +0.006 (9,953, -0.490); WAC -0.011 (7,779, -0.389); UBE2A -0.020 (6,504, -0.162); UBE2B +0.007 (10,016, +0.049); UBE2E1 +0.108 (17,038, -0.007); MSL2 -0.015 (7,112, -0.083); MSL1 -0.073 (2,078, -0.365); KAT8 +0.004 (9,683, -1.452); USP22 -0.211 (226, +0.089); ATXN7L3 -0.188 (290, -0.336); ENY2 +0.015 (11,080, -0.313); USP51 -0.057 (2,992, -0.004); USP27X +0.028 (12,583, +0.075); RTF1 -0.083 (1,645, -0.666); LEO1 -0.168 (367, -0.213); PAF1 -0.038 (4,529, -0.832); CTR9 +0.146 (17,413, -0.873); CDC73 +0.020 (11,645, -1.122); SKIC8 -0.016 (7,012, -0.746); with MEN1 -0.866 (rank 1), KMT2A -0.541 (rank 11) and DOT1L -0.231 (rank 184) as benchmarks.
DepMap CRISPR (Chronos) genome-wide KMT2A-selectivity scan of 17,728 protein-coding genes, 11 Cellosaurus-annotated KMT2A-rearranged leukaemia lines vs 43 other leukaemia lines (analyses/depmap-kmt2a-selective-scan-full/results.json, all_results) · Broad Institute DepMap; Cellosaurus; Open Targets Platform; scan run by this project, looked up for this beat · Database and derived analysis 2026What this evidence cannot show
No new computation was performed for this entry; every value is a lookup of the existing scan's per-gene results, so this analysis inherits every caveat of that scan: 11 KMT2A-rearranged lines, none infant-derived and the group AML-weighted; possible incompleteness of Cellosaurus fusion annotation, which biases toward the null; differences not permutation-tested per gene; and no correction for the fact that CRISPR knockout compresses apparent selectivity for pan-essential genes. DepMap release version is not reported by the API.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
- Two primary papers report that this machinery is required in MLL-rearranged leukaemia - Wang et al. 2013 (RNF20, shRNA, multiple models, in vivo) and Garrido Castro et al. 2018 (RNF20/RNF40/WAC axis in infant/paediatric MLL-rearranged ALL xenografts, with WAC knockdown phenocopying H2Bub loss). Neither is contradicted by a null on selectivity, and the second works in the B-ALL context that this DepMap panel does not represent. Garrido Castro P et al. 2018
Counter-evidence (DepMap scan, this project): RNF20 ranks 16,229 of 17,728 with a positive selectivity difference (+0.076) on a pan-essentiality of -0.734, and RNF40 is +0.006 at rank 9,953, so the therapeutic framing built on the MV4;11 interface mutants sits one step below a layer with no KMT2A selectivity
Counter-evidence (DepMap scan, this project): no PAF1C subunit is meaningfully KMT2A-selective (PAF1 -0.038 rank 4,529; RTF1 -0.083 rank 1,645; CTR9 +0.146 rank 17,413) against MEN1 at -0.866 rank 1, so an immortalisation result in a mouse MLL-AF9 assay is not evidence of selective requirement in human KMT2A-rearranged lines
Counter-evidence (DepMap scan, this project): MSL2 -0.015 (rank 7,112) on a pan-essentiality of -0.083, MSL1 -0.073 (rank 2,078), KAT8 +0.004 - a route said to matter at HOXA9 and MEIS1 leaves no trace on a knockout screen across 11 KMT2A-rearranged lines
Counter-evidence (DepMap scan, this project): RNF40's KMT2A-selectivity difference is +0.006 at rank 9,953 of 17,728 on a pan-essentiality of -0.490, and RNF20 is +0.076 at rank 16,229 on -0.734 - marginally LESS required in KMT2A-rearranged lines while broadly essential, so the panobinostat necessity result is not evidence of selective requirement
no KMT2A selectivity: difference +0.076, rank 16,229 of 17,728
ranks every writer, carrier and eraser of the mark against the whole genome
the writers rank 16,229, 9,953 and 7,779 while MEN1 ranks 1
one of six entries whose data.script is the affected scan
A CpG-island-targeted route to H2Bub1 that is not in that analysis's gene set.